Michelle Obama: The Perfect Role Model for Third World Women?

[SirJosephPorter]

If you had bothered to read her posts, you would know that she thinks that Al Jazeera is more objective, more accurate, more reliable than CNN.

 

[karrie]

(not that I look silly in this case).

nope. Not many racists come across as silly.

 

[karrie]

If you had bothered to read her posts, you would know that she thinks that Al Jazeera is more objective, more accurate, more reliable than CNN.

Having your bigotted remark proven right doesn't mean it wasn't bigotted.

I could walk through downtown Houston and declare that the black man walking toward me is probably a gun toting thug, and if he just so happens to actually be a gun toting thug, it doesn't mean I wasn't a racist prick for making the assumption in the first place.

Might I suggest you take a long hard look at why so many people are telling you that you come off as a racist?

 

[L Gilbert]

.... and a vague, ambiguous, verbally profligate, and funny one at that.

 

[petros]

The CNN or FOX Honky news is pretty ridiculous so it's loooong stretch to claim any that any other CIA run news service would be any different.

 

[Amatullaah]

If you had bothered to read her posts, you would know that she thinks that Al Jazeera is more objective, more accurate, more reliable than CNN.

Here's a perfect example of you putting words in my mouth (yet again). Please illustrate where I said that Al Jazeera is "more accurate, more reliable" than CNN. Just to drive home the point of how inaccurate you are, I also said I found that Al Jazeera's English-language media was more objective than CNN.

But this isn't really the problem. The problem is that you immediately write-off my opinion, accuse me of calling CNN liars, and attempt to patronize just because I don't share your opinions. And to justify this, you use my assumed news preferences (with which you do not agree) to talk down to me and dismiss my views. It's no wonder to me that you agree so much with the article since the racism and sanctimony inherent in it must resonate with you.

 

[L Gilbert]

I wouldn't worry about it, Amatullaah. Joe's a legend and an authority unto himself. lol

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Having your bigotted remark proven right doesn't mean it wasn't bigotted.

I could walk through downtown Houston and declare that the black man walking toward me is probably a gun toting thug, and if he just so happens to actually be a gun toting thug, it doesn't mean I wasn't a racist prick for making the assumption in the first place.

Might I suggest you take a long hard look at why so many people are telling you that you come off as a racist?

Racist is in the eye of the beholder, karrie. It is easy to call somebody racist, it doesn’t cost you anything, and it gives you a feeling of superiority.

But I am far too old a hand at this game to take such an accusation seriously. I cannot think of anything I have said, that qualifies me as a racist (you are free to disagree, of course).

Calling somebody racist is a quick, easy way to end the dialog. After all, after you have called somebody a racist, what is there left to say? So I can understand temptation to label somebody a racist, to take a short cut, whether it is deserved or no.

In this case, based upon the previous posts of Amatullaah, I made certain assumptions and they proved to be right, she does think that Al Jazeera is more objective than CNN. So telling the truth, making educated guesses based upon available evidence, may be racist in your opinion, it is deductive logic in my opinion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Here's a perfect example of you putting words in my mouth (yet again). Please illustrate where I said that Al Jazeera is "more accurate, more reliable" than CNN. Just to drive home the point of how inaccurate you are, I also said I found that Al Jazeera's English-language media was more objective than CNN.

What exactly is the problem here, Amatullaah? You said that Al Jazeera is more objective, I paraphrased it into more accurate, more reliable. So what is the problem? More objective usually implies more accurate, more reliable. I really don’t see what you are getting at here.

The problem is that you immediately write-off my opinion, accuse me of calling CNN liars, and attempt to patronize just because I don't share your opinions.

Now, didn’t you at least imply that you didn’t believe the CNN story? How is that any different from calling CNN liars? Do you have any problem with me paraphrasing your views?

And to justify this, you use my assumed news preferences (with which you do not agree) to talk down to me and dismiss my views.

Well, my assume news preferences for you turned out to be right, didn’t they?

It's no wonder to me that you agree so much with the article since the racism and sanctimony inherent in it must resonate with you.

So, you think CNN article is full of racism (incidentally, if you think CNN is racist, I am proud to be a racist myself, I would much rather be in the camp of CNN that the camp of FOX news or Al Jazeera or Al Arabia) and sanctimony, you think (without any evidence to back it up) that CNN talked to women who do not represent third world women. And then when I say that according to you CNN are a bunch of liars, you take offense to that? What kind of nonsense is that?

If you don’t think that CNN are a bunch of liars, are you saying that they are telling the truth in this news article?

You seem to have this strange attitude. You say something derogatory about CNN, and when I repeat that, you seem to take offense. Well, if my repeating your trashing of CNN gives you offense, I suggest you not trash CNN in the first place.

Anyway, this message applies to karrie as well. Karrie, if you also think that CNN is being racist in this article, and then you are calling me a racist, then I fully agree, I fully understand, I am a racist. I would proudly sit with CNN, rather than consort with FOX news, Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh or Al Jazeera.

 

[L Gilbert]

Amatullaah:while I do find Al Jazeera's English-language media to be more objective than CNN, I do not refer to it as my primary source of news.

Joe:If you had bothered to read her posts, you would know that she thinks that Al Jazeera is more objective, more accurate, more reliable than CNN.

Your assumption that Amatullaah thinks AlJazeera is more accurate and reliable than CNN, was not necessarily right.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Your assumption that Amatullaah thinks AlJazeera is more accurate and reliable than CNN, was not necessarily right.

She said that Al Jazeera is more objective than CNN. More objective usually includes more reliable, more accurate (can an unreliable, inaccurate source really be objective?). It is all part and parcel of the same thing. She is splitting hair here and so are you.

 

[L Gilbert]

She said that Al Jazeera is more objective than CNN. More objective usually includes more reliable, more accurate (can an unreliable, inaccurate source really be objective?). It is all part and parcel of the same thing. She is splitting hair here and so are you.

Bull shyte. Unreliable and inaccurate sources can be objective. It usually results from having incomplete data.

 

[karrie]

Here's a perfect example of you putting words in my mouth (yet again).
What exactly is the problem here, Amatullaah? You said that Al Jazeera is more objective, I paraphrased it into more accurate, more reliable. .... Do you have any problem with me paraphrasing your views?

Clearly she does, and rightly so.

 

[L Gilbert]

... because it isn't paraphrasing. It's editorialising.

 

[karrie]

She said that Al Jazeera is more objective than CNN. More objective usually includes more reliable, more accurate (can an unreliable, inaccurate source really be objective?). It is all part and parcel of the same thing. She is splitting hair here and so are you.

Objective observers can be imprecise and wrong. Just because you aren't picking sides doesn't mean you're good at reporting the facts correctly, or in a timely fashion.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That’s a matter of opinion, karrie. It is a very fine balancing act if one decides to be objective (report things as they are) and also to be inaccurate (report things as they are not) and unreliable (again, reporting things as they are not).

As a matter of curiosity, can you think of any news source that is objective but also is unreliable and inaccurate? As I said, that would be quite a balancing act.

Indeed, how can one be objective and unreliable? I suppose whatever stories the source reports, they are reported objectively, but the source does not report all the stories. As to being objective and unreliable at the same time, I don’t see how that could be done.

No, in my opinion, she is splitting hair and so are you.

 

[pgs]

Around and around it goes.
The bastion of all that is good in liberal land SJP turns out to be a racist.
To funny .
How does it feel to be so gently thrown from your pedestal?

 

[EagleSmack]

Um, I haven't read the whole thread, but why do people here assume that 'Third World Women' need a foreign role model in the first place?

You should, if you haven't already, read the first post of the thread completely. The original poster said that Third World women should look up to Michelle Obama for her stature, status AND... as SJP put it "Michelle is as dark as they come."

You see though... Porter is a Liberal... he feels that his liberal views insulate him from being a racist. He does not see the wrong in that statement and the wrong in claiming that since you are a Muslim that Al Jezera is your primary news source. Both statements are racist and insensitive and as you put it ...patronizing. He does not see it that way...he is incapable.

 

[karrie]

Indeed, how can one be objective and unreliable? I suppose whatever stories the source reports, they are reported objectively, but the source does not report all the stories. As to being objective and unreliable at the same time, I don’t see how that could be done.

No, in my opinion, she is splitting hair and so are you.

Objectivity merely points to a spirit with which you are presenting your view. Not every dropped news story is dropped due to an agenda. Sometimes it's dropped just because those running the show are dense. The local paper in my home town springs readily to mind. It was constantly bungling the details of stories, presenting stories no one cared about and failing to add ones they did. It wasn't done out of a lack of objectivity. It was simply that they sucked at running a paper.

And of course you think I'm splitting hairs. You always do when someone tries to point out how you've changed the meaning of something with your 'paraphrasing'.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Objectivity merely points to a spirit with which you are presenting your view.

Now karrie, how does one judge spirit, how does one judge what is in a person’s heart? If somebody says he is objective, is that enough? I think objectivism is judged through actions, not through ‘spirit’, not based upon the source itself claiming to be objective.

If a newspaper presents both sides of the story accurately, without any bias, then it is considered objective. Just because a newspaper says that it is objective does not make it so. FOX news claims that it is objective, but if it is, then I am the President of USA.

Whether a source is objective is decided not by the siprit (or whether it claims to be objective), but by its actions. And a source cannot really be objective without also being fair and accurate.

The newspaper you describe was neither objective (it did not report both sides of an issue accurately) nor reliable nor accurate.

In my opinion siprit means nothing, almost every news source claims to be objective. To me actions speak louder than words.